Influence of Canadian provincial stewardship model attributes on the cost effectiveness of e-waste management

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of e-waste collection and management trends across six Canadian provinces, focusing on e-waste collection rates, provincial stewardship model attributes, program strategies and budget allocations from 2013 to 2020. Temporal and regression analyses were conducted using data from Electronic Product Recycling Association reports. A group characterization based on geographical proximity is proposed, aiming to explore the potential outcomes of fostering collaboration among neighboring provinces. The analysis emphasizes the significant impact of stewardship model attributes on e-waste collection rates, with Quebec emerging as a standout case, showcasing a remarkable 61.5% surge in collection rates. Findings from group analysis reveal a positive correlation between per capita e-waste collection rate and the growth of businesses and collection sites in Western Canada (Group A - British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba). This highlights the potential benefits of a coordinated waste management approach, emphasizing the importance of shared resources and collaborative policies. Saskatchewan and Manitoba allocated only 6.6% and 7.0% of their respective budgets to e-waste transfer and storage. British Columbia's observed steady decrease of e-waste collection rate. In Group A, stewards handled 2.18-13.95 tonnes of e-waste during the study period. The cost per tonne of e-waste tended to be lower when more e-waste is managed per steward, suggesting the potential benefits of an integrated e-waste collection and management system.

Cost analysis of the WHO-HEARTS program for hypertension control and CVD prevention in primary health facilities in Ethiopia

Background

In 2020, Ethiopia launched the Ethiopia Hypertension Control Initiative (EHCI) program to improve hypertension care using the approach described in the WHO HEARTS technical package.

Objective

To estimate the costs of implementing the HEARTS program for hypertension control and cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in the primary care setting in Ethiopia for adult primary care users in the catchment area of five examined facilities.

Study design

This study entails a program cost analysis using cross-sectional primary and secondary data.

Methods

Micro-costing facility surveys were used to assess activity costs related to training, counselling, screening, lab diagnosis, medications, monitoring, and start-up costs at five selected health facilities. Cost data were obtained from primary and secondary sources, and expert opinion. Annual costs from the health system perspective were estimated using the Excel-based HEARTS costing tool under two intervention scenarios - hypertension-only control and a CVD risk management program, which addresses diabetes and hypercholesterolemia in addition to hypertension.

Results

The estimated cost per adult primary care user was USD 5.3 for hypertension control and USD 19.3 for integrated CVD risk management. The estimated medication cost per person treated for hypertension was USD 9.0, whereas treating diabetes and high cholesterol would cost USD 15.4 and USD 15.3 per person treated, respectively. Medications were the major cost driver, accounting for 37% of the total cost in the hypertension control program. In the CVD risk management scenario, the proportions of medication and lab diagnostics of total costs were 18% and 64%, respectively.

Conclusions

The results from this study can inform planning and budgeting for HEARTS scale-up to prevent CVD across Ethiopia.

Startup and implementation costs of a colorectal cancer screening tailored navigation research study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Despite improvements in screening, testing for CRC is underutilized in some populations, suggesting a need to identify efficient test promotion strategies.

METHODS

Our intervention guided individuals from low-income, underserved communities into primary care clinics to receive CRC screening referrals. Community sites were randomized to education or education plus navigation. The Phase I community-to-clinic navigation outcome was clinic attendance; the Phase II clinic-to-screening navigation outcome was screening completion. We used micro-costing to determine costs necessary to replicate our project in a similar, non-research setting.

RESULTS

Over the 4-year project, startup costs tended to decrease as implementation costs increased. The largest component of startup costs (32 % of total) was community site recruitment. Implementation costs per class attendee were higher in the navigation group ($1084) than control ($798). But costs per participant who made a clinic appointment ($3573 versus $6292) and per participant who completed screening ($4083 versus $7640) were lower in the navigation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our description of startup and implementation costs for this intervention provides decision makers with information needed to plan and budget for a similar project to guide individuals from community into clinics.

Costs of promoting cancer screening: Evidence from CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP)

The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) provided funding to 29 grantees to increase colorectal cancer screening. We describe the screening promotion costs of CRCCP grantees to evaluate the extent to which the program model resulted in the use of funding to support interventions recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). We analyzed expenditures for screening promotion for the first three years of the CRCCP to assess cost per promotion strategy, and estimated the cost per person screened at the state level based on various projected increases in screening rates. All grantees engaged in small media activities and more than 90% used either client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, or patient navigation. Based on all expenditures, projected cost per eligible person screened for a 1%, 5%, and 10% increase in state-level screening proportions are $172, $34, and $17, respectively. CRCCP grantees expended the majority of their funding on Community Guide recommended screening promotion strategies but about a third was spent on other interventions. Based on this finding, future CRC programs should be provided with targeted education and information on evidence-based strategies, rather than broad based recommendations, to ensure that program funds are expended mainly on evidence-based interventions.